Reply With Quote
Ok i know you dont like 'em but i honestly feel that wayas crazy,inmature and controversial you may think of me,but im still holding to my thoughts.
It's posts like this that I was talking about last night redlion......
Ok i know you dont like 'em but i honestly feel that way
what thought is that????........>>>> Piston hater???
shackO, why are you ALWAYS following me wherever i go? are you gay?or something pleas explain(and no sarcasm is not explaining)
I don't think the NBA is rigged as far as determining the winners and combatants every year but I do believe that they will give the losing teams in some series every opportunity to win some games. The more games the more money. I'll always remember the timberwolves series when the T-wolves had the best record in the league. The lakers were blowing them out and all of a sudden the ref's start calling everything on the lakers. The lakers still won the game but Minnesota had every break and call to give them a chance.
I was watching the Phoenix/Dallas series and one of the ref's made a bad call on the mavs. Avery was Irrate and went to the official. The official said something to Avery, and Avery nodded OK, and walked away. On the very next play the ref called Phoenix for a moving pick at the top of the key. hmmmm,....
I'll believe that the league is rigged on determining contenders for the le when,
a.) Sterns dream matchup comes true, Lakers vs. Lakers
b.) If next years finalist are the Lakers and Heat
c.) If the Knicks and Lakers are competing for the le next season.
Kind of crazy to rig games that wont benefit you, wouldn't you think?
You might take the cake with that jagoff inference. What a jackass idea.
While I totally don't think the league is rigged there was a funny situation in that same series between Dallas & Phoenix. I don't recall what game it was (I think it was game 4 in Phoenix), but Nash was talking to one of the refs (Salvdore I think) coming out of a timeout. They were smiling & laughing and having a good time it appeared. As play is about to start up again, they finished talking and they fist each other like teammates would and on the very next play that ref called a questionable foul on Dallas player guarding Nash. It was an amazing sequence to watch but there was nothing rigged about it.
Based on your theory, speak about the 2002 Game 6 WCF finals.
Uh huh, uh huh.
I never said anything about LeBron gettng Jordan-like ratings, I said ratings would improve. My point wasn't that LeBron is the next Jordan, it was that he is the biggest draw in the NBA and he would elevate the ratings. Basically you took my point and played connect the dots with some ridiculous idea that you claimed was mine, when in fact you came up with it.
You said that Stern wouldn't allow 2 small market teams to compete in the finals, but that is wrong. Why wouldn't he allow the Cavs and Suns to compete when the ratings would be fine? Makes no sense. You have to admit that the ratings would be at least very comparable to the Heat v. Mavs. I think there is as much star power in a Suns v. Cavs series. Personally I think that the ratings would have been better, maybe not much better, but better none the less.
You also claimed that the league gambled on the Nets v. Spurs in the finals, that is some lame consiracy theory bull . And it makes no sense, they knew that the ratings weren't going to be high going into that series, both teams had been in the finals before that year, very recently. So do you really think that the league took a gamble on those 2 teams, when in fact they already knew from previous experience that those 2 teams were a ratings nightmare? That makes no sense. Face it, the NBA isn't rigged at all. Maybe that theory just makes you feel better that your team hasn't made the finals or won it all, but it has nothing to do with them being a small market team.
I am posting in about two or maybe three active threads right now… BBBbbOOOO!!!!
You seem a bit paranoid here…
If I was gay what WTF would I want with you…. Besides ain’t you a women??
It’s a small world even on a big board in the off season….. You shouldn’t flaunt your insecurities especially with all the you are talking around here…
Was it the comment about being a Pistons hater??? Surely you aren’t going to deny that..
I will make an effort to avoid your Pistons observations as you already seem to have more than you can handle with them………
Your friend,
ShackO
I don't know what was said between the two, (btw it was Crawford talking to Avery and Crawford who made the call) I just found that odd. It could have been a makeup call for the bad call on the other end, but that was the first time I have seen an exchange like that. What could Crawford possibly say to Avery at a time when he was upset about a blown call, and Avery just nod and walk away saying Ok?
I wont dispute that the lakers got the breaks in game 6 of 2002, had nothing to do with the outcome and like I stated, the kings had game 7 in Sacramento. If they did not choke at the freethrow line, they might have won. End of story!Based on your theory, speak about the 2002 Game 6 WCF finals.
Uh huh, uh huh.
He had to say, "Avery, here comes the makeup call, I owe you one! But don't tell anybody, OK? Especially when you suspect that I'm promising calls to the other team too, alright?"
That has to be close.
What do you think Nash told him???
Given the scenario (I don't recall the actual situation but I did watch the game) I would think he asked him to watch how they are fouling him......... That is not unusual............
It is no secret that in 2001 the league took a beating when the Lakers dominated the playoffs by Sweeping Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio in route to the finals where they defeated the 76'ers in 5 games. It was great for the Lakers and Lakers fans but bad for the league. The league could not have that happen again. A rule change was made to try to prevent the Lakers from dominating the league like that again.
It is a no brainer that the more games the more money for the league.
Oh please.
I take it you don't believe that Shaq's dominance was one of the reasons for the zone in the NBA?
Is changing the defensive rules the same as rigging games to get more of them?
Thursday, May 31
Lakers' perfection proving costly to league, TV
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES -- The Los Angeles Lakers' dominance in the 2001 playoffs is a losing proposition for television and the NBA.
The team swept the first three rounds of the playoffs with 11 straight victories, bad news when it comes to ratings and advertising dollars for the networks and revenue for the NBA.
"In conference finals, each game is worth about $5 million to $10 million in ad revenue," industry analyst David Carter said. "If a series goes only four games, not six or seven, they run the risk of forgoing what could have been sold in ads."
That could amount to about $20 million, Carter said.
Generally, a seven-game series must go to five games to break even, he said. The Lakers needed only four games to defeat San Antonio and Sacramento, and three games (out of five) to defeat Portland. Out of a maximum 19 possible games, they have played the minimum 11.
Los Angeles is four wins away from a second straight championship and an unprecedented perfect playoff sweep.
Paul Lazarus of the media-buying company TN Media in New York agreed that NBC and the NBA, which gets a portion of ad revenues, aren't cheering the Lakers' performance.
There's a double whammy with the kind of blowout victories the Lakers have scored: There are not only fewer games, but lopsided, less exciting ones -- and that means smaller audiences.
"A lot of viewers who are not regular-season viewers are there to watch a compe ive game," Lazarus said.
A case in point was Game 3 between the San Antonio Spurs and the Lakers, which was close until the middle of the third quarter and ended with the Lakers winning 111-72. The NBC broadcast averaged 8.89 million viewers, down 15 percent from last year's comparable Lakers-Trail Blazers game.
The playoffs so far, compared to the same period last year, are down 8 percent in viewership, NBC said Thursday.
Ratings for TNT and TBS, which aired weekday games during the early rounds, were off 18 percent compared to last year's playoffs.
"Basically, when they're always winning, what's there to get excited about?" asked Bill Parent, an assistant dean at UCLA and fervent basketball fan. "You pretty much know what's going to happen, so you channel surf a little. See what else is on."
Ahead is the championship round between the Lakers and the winner of the Milwaukee Bucks-Philadelphia 76ers matchup. The 76ers lead the series 3-2, with the sixth game set for Friday night.
"The big issue with the NBA right now is the fine line between building a high visibility franchise, which Kobe (Bryant) and Shaq (Shaquille O'Neal) are in the midst of, versus one that is so dominant it's not compe ive," Lazarus said.
While ratings sink, the fees paid by networks for broadcast rights are rising, compounding their financial trouble, Lazarus said.
"Advertisers don't care that they have escalating fees. That's not our problem. We're going to pay what the (broadcast) is worth," he said.
There could be one positive influence for NBC and the NBA. If the Lakers keep winning, viewers might tune in to see if they run the table, said Carter of the Los Angeles-based Sports Business Group.
NBC is keeping that in mind, sounding an optimistic tone as it keeps its eye on the Lakers.
"It's an interesting debate because people love to watch history being made and watch dynasties developing. ... A perfect postseason has never been done before," network spokeswoman Cameron Blanchard said.
"On the other hand, you also want to see a long, compe ive series and you want to see that drama build over five, six, seven games," she said. "But it's sports; you don't know what's going to happen."
Oh, that's why the Kings and Lakers went 7 games. I'm so glad that Stern ordered 7 games instead of allowing the Lakers to just sweep them again. Because I didn't think that the Bibby/J-Will trade had influence on the Kings getting better, I always suspected that Stern was behind their improvement.
Those are your words, not mine. What I am saying is after 2001 the league went into damage control to ensure revenue. Pretty simple if you ask me.
1. Stop the Lakers dominance.
enter the zone defense - check
2. Sweeps are a loss in revenue for the league and TV.
enter calls that could be made on any play being made for revenue purposes. - check
The NBA is not determining the combatants or the matchups in the Playoffs, they're just milking all of those matchups for every penny they can get.
Oh, so the Lakers were getting screwed by the league via the officials, just to avoid sweeps? Does anybody else feel like the Lakers ever got jobbed by the offiating in 2002? You might be the only idiot on the planet that feels that way. Lakers got more than their fare share of calls.
Yeah, the league didn't like a big market like the Lakers winning so they ins uted the zone defense
Lakers can thank Stern for where they find themselves now?
Pay no attention to that teams implosion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions